Day 43 and Still No Response

The clock is ticking but I'm not one to stand around and wait.

Today Wednesday, April 4, 2012, marks the 43rd day in which United States District Judge Noel L. Hillman has not moved upon a motion that he and Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams recuse themselves from civil actions 11-cv-06304 and 08-cv-02407 NLH-KMW.

Not more than two days after filing the motion for recusal, I shared with you the viewers of this blog, within "Absolute Immunity via Recusal" the following:

On or before February 21, 2012, U.S.D.J. Noel L. Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams may retain their "Absolute Immunity" by recusing themselves from civil actions 11-cv-06304 and 08-cv-02407, which are before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden vicinage.

Earl Hickson and Markland Grant have filed a ten page "28 U.S.C.A. § 1746 Declaration of Bias or Prejudice and Motion for Recusal of U.S.D.J. Noel L.Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams.  (What is 28 USCA § 1746)  Within 33 minutes of receiving the motion, amazingly the court was able to docket a hearing date of 2/21/2012. The average person would be impressed and say "wow what an efficient and speedy bunch of judicial officer." Not!

 Noel L. Hillman can sure dig some huge holes for himself.  Former president Bush is not in office to send him packing to another state this time, as was the case when he was prosecuting Mr. Abramoff, and Bush gave him his present judgeship to quell that debacle. (See "Archives Opens the Eyes")

Having been denied justice for some 43 days now by this unethical band of judicial officer's I'm in a bit of a quandary. Do I thank my lucky stars that I was only kidnapped and falsely imprisoned for ten days, or do I implement all that's available to me to acquire redress?

 I know Hillman is beyond pissed off, thank God I'm not a lawyer, and I don't to put food on the table by appearing in his court.  In my opinion that fear of loosing her source of income, and or status with the "good ole boys and girls" caused judge Karen M. Williams to yield to the proselytization as discussed within, "Proselytization of KMW."

By now you all know that I am working on getting justice, even if the whole court has to turn itself in, but before that happens I must share the details and doing's of the two "liars for hire."

You won't believe it, but one is a Deputy Attorney General for the State of New Jersey and the other is a partner in a New York law firm located within the Empire State Building.

I'm working on those post's for you plus I have some other projects to share, so I hope you continue to join me here at this blog.  Please continue to spread the word by sharing this site with your friends and associates.  (Check out my updated profile photo and description for a clue as to what's in store.)

Thank You,

The Casino Gaming Oracle!

Agent of Change

With other things in the works I will show you that when one stands his or her ground in a court of law he or she can be an agent of change.

Some will have time to read Judge Noel L. Hillmans September 27, 2010, Opinion in civil action 08-cv-02407 in it's entirety, and some will rely on my word.  For this posting you will have to decide for yourselves, which path you shall take.  The aforementioned opinion is reported as Hickson v. Marina Associates, 743 F.Supp.2d 362 (2010), and you can read the full case by clicking the link.

Those that have been following this blog know that it was spawned due to the misconduct needed, and unethical judicial misconduct exacted within the above opinion.  A lot has taken place since September 27, 2010, and there is presently a motion before the court for Judge Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams to recuse themselves from this matter, which is now on March 14, 2012, some 22 day over due from the purported hearing date of 2/21/2012.

Good ole boy network member Noel L. Hillman does appear to have learned from his experience in dealing with this pro se litigant.  He has further exhibited behavior that tends to show that he appears to no longer under-estimate pro se litigant or he recognizes the power of the venue you are viewing now.  I say this because Hillman has issued an opinion that supports this belief.

On December 23, 2011, he wrote an opinion in civil action 09-5617, Jackson v. Grondolsky, Dist. Court, D. New Jersey 2011, wherein he tries to reduce the (JSHIT) exacted upon pro se litigants. Yet thankfully this opinion also clearly show what this judge knew or should have known on September 27, 2010, but for some unknown reason failed to apply in that matter.

This blog came online during the second week of November 2011, and all of the other filings involved in both of the cases referenced in this blog were filed.  Hence, Hillman was on notice as to most of the (JSHIT) that he should shy away from as I was beginning to expose it.  Not to mention the fact that the court records were reflecting the same.

In the posting entitled "Bent of Mind Leads to Straight Injustice" I showed you averment 17 of civil action 11-cv-06304 wherein it is shown that if one searched Hillman's opinion of 9/27/2010 for the word exhibit, he of she would get a return of zero matches for that search.

Fast forward to 12/23/2011, and run the same search for the term "exhibit" within Jackson v. Grondolsky, and you will find that Judge Noel L. Hillman is a bit more reluctant and less hubristic at willfully omitting citations to the exhibits presented to him. Hence "Agent of Change."

But...Let's look closer at the case and see what a liar and unethical judge we are dealing with. This man clearly shows that he is aware of the proper standard he should have followed.  There is no other excuse, now that he has show that he knew that his failure to consider the exhibits attached to 08-02407 was required, and the lack of mention of the word exhibit within his ruling in that matter, can be construed as nothing less than willful ignorance.

Please, don't take my word for it, see "IV ANALYSIS" within  Jackson v. Grondolsky where he states:

"Pursuant to Rule 12(d), "[i]f, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(d).

An exception to the general rule on considering matters extraneous to the pleadings permits "the Court [to] consider (1) exhibits attached to the complaint, (2) matters of public record, and (3) all documents that are integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment." D.G. v. Somerset Hills School Dist., 559 F. Supp. 2d 484, 491 (D.N.J. 2008); see also M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App'x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010) ("In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it is well-established that a court should `consider only the allegations in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, and documents that form the basis of a claim.'") (citation omitted). Additionally, "a court may [also] consider an undisputedly authentic document that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the document." Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993)."

So if any one out there knows Judge Noel L. Hillman, maybe you can ask him why the double standard, and then you can come back and tell us what is going on.  Till then I say he in on that (JSHIT) and if you look above I have set in bold "undisputedly authentic document," which we will discuss tomorrow.

You too are an agent of change.  Your support and views of this blog will help to eliminate this injustice and make our judicial officers think twice before practicing Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics (JSHIT).

Thank You, and I appreciate it each time you tell a friend or two to join in the fight.

Agent, Gaming Oracle, Over and Out!

Judge Lies to Cover Lies, (JSHIT #8)

Please don't pre-judge me to be disrespectful when I say that a judge lies to cover lies, but I have to call it as I see it.  Pro se litigants face enough prejudice in courts due to their pro se "status," so please allow me to continue giving you the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and then you can judge for yourselves.

Previously within "JSHIT #8, Have Judge That Will Lie!" I gave you the facts and showed you the documents relating to the filing of the "Third Amended Complaint" in civil action 08cv02407.  You were also given the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that stated when and how a paper is filed with the court.  So, based on the facts and the law, was the "Third Amended Complaint" filed on 8/18/2009?

Yes, as you saw when you clicked the link this document was stamped filed by the clerk of the court on 8/18/2009 as document [32], which is further reflected by the courts docket sheet showing the same.  But now we must remember that we have a judge that knows he cannot make a ruling on a document that is supported by documentary proofs attached as exhibits, so a plan had to be devised to correct his understudy's mistake in following the rules correctly.

Again, knowing that the complaint was supported by strong proofs, Judge Noel L. Hillman and his band of cohorts took from 8/18/2009 through 11/02/2009 to devise their plan.  After coming up with this plan Judge Karen Williams was called upon to issue an Order stating that I had 20 days to re-file a document that was already filed on 8/18/2009.  [See Order granting32 Motion on the docket sheet by scrolling to page 11.]

Since I smell some "JSHIT," let's see what the law has to say on the matter, because it's obvious that we have to take it further than FRCVP 5, when dealing with this band of wrongdoers.  Dean v. Veterans Admin. Regional Office, 943F. 2d 667, 671 says:

See also Rodgers v. Bowen, 790 F.2d 1550, 1552 (11th Cir.1986) ("[A] complaint is `filed' for statute of limitations purposes when it is `in the actual or constructive possession of the clerk,' regardless of the untimely payment of the required filing fee.") (citations omitted); Robinson v. City of Fairfield, 750 F.2d 1507, 1511 (11th Cir.1985) (the filing of legal and factual nature of claim along with application for appointment of counsel and for authority to commence action without prepayment of costs constitutes the filing of a complaint).

 These judicial officers must be "smoking the good shit," they have to be high on something if the docket shows the complaint in the possession of the clerk, the document itself clearly says as seen on the Notice of Motion: "Case 1:08-cv-02407-NLH-KMW Document 32 Filed 08/18/09 page 1 of 7 Page ID: 519."  Go ahead check it, I'll wait...one thousand one...one thousand two…

Okay, you're back.  Please excuse me but after seeing that you'll understand why I am upset.  How can lying ass Judge Noel L. Hillman have the hubris to write sentence number four, stating:

Sentence #4- That same month, he filed his Motion for Summary Judgment.

America, lets him write this "JSHIT" other lawyers and judges accept this "JSHIT," and start citing the "JSHIT," and the next thing you know we have bad judge made law.  As a pro se litigant I am held to the same rules of court and rules of professional conduct.  Let me boldly state that I hereby proclaim "NOT ON MY [FN] WATCH!"

 Of course he has to state sentence four as he does, this liar knew they were going to put on their "Broadway level" performance of Dec. 14, 2009, wherein "Ms. Proselytization" would attempt to indoctrinate me into this school of thought. NOT!  Later on I will show you how DAG for the State of New Jersey, Kathleen Bartus did submit the documents they would use to over expose and remove 8 pages from my complaint.  Folks federal statutory law calls that tampering with, destruction, and mutilation of documents filed within a Court of the United States of America.

Any wonder why as you read this on 3/8/2012, lying ass Hillman's ruling on the motion to recuse himself from civil action 08-cv-02407 and 11-cv-06304 is 16 days past due from the 2/21/2012 hearing date. The "JSHIT" stinks something awful, and someone needs to get off the "judicial pot."

See, on Dec. 14, 2009, before court commenced I filed the Motion for Summary Judgment at 10:41 AM.  You can see at the link that the clerk of the court stamped it "Received 10:41 AM," and then it was stamped within the system: "Case 1:08-cv-02407-NLH-KMW Document 39 Filed 12/14/09."  Bad news is, further research has shown me that this practice of "twice filing" might just be worthy of another form of "JSHIT."  You check it out, go to google scholar, in the search box, type "filed twice," and watch the page results fill to the max, Hmm???

 I'll close here, but thanks for coming back each day.  Oh before I forget, I got to thinking, what about all those with everyday questions on the law?  Well I've created a page on Facebook that all can join to ask, discuss, and share their experiences with the law.  You can make posts and all sort's of things, many will probably know how to use this page better than I do, but my pledge will be to get the best answers and keep the conversations going. I will just ask that it stays law related, so please tell as many friends as you can and lets all be friends at 1lol-LaymenOnLaw at http://www.facebook.com/1lolLaymenOnLaw.  I figured others might enjoy saying "this one layman on the law says, or has found."  Again, this community page is open to all laypersons, lawyers, and all in between. See you there!

Thank You,

The Casino Gaming Oracle!

Consciousness of the Conundrum I've Created

An intricate and difficult problem; is but one definition of the word  conundrum.  Please do not misinterpret the title above, for I believe in my task, but this posting will acknowledge and address those that may view me as the problem.

I am only a problem, if and when those that subscribe to the "good ole boy's and girl's" mentality are asked their opinions or broach the subject of this blog or civil actions 08-cv-02407 and 11-cv-06304.

Hence, conflict may have been the more appropriate word to use in the title, but again, I don't see that being the case from a moral standpoint.  What I see, as an outsider looking into our judicial system, is a situation wherein "dirt" rules.  How much "dirt" one possess over his or her opponent, how many times one knows of a judges violations of the rules appear to control which side wins or looses a case.

 Moreover the above appears to substantiate the fact that nowadays most cases are settled.  Why?  Well as I see it, a settlement allows for the lawyers and judges to maintain their dirt on one another, and no dirty laundry has to washed on the record.  I've have termed this "the sweeping under a judicial rug." [More on that later]

What I really wanted to discuss with you is my own conundrum.  To make injustice known, I need the support of all those that believe that there has been one in the first place.  Who would be in the best position to say if injustice has reared its ugly head?  Yes, those studied in the law.  Law students, lawyers, law professors, and any judicial officers with legal training. BUT…

 Think about it, if you were in law school right now, would you put your legal career on the line by siding with a pro se litigants campaign to expose judicial misconduct, denial of equal protection of the laws and denial of meaningful access to the court's.  Of course not unless your goal was to become a legal malpractice attorney.

 Think once more, this time you're an attorney, you've done your time in law school, you've passed the bar, and you are actually practicing law.  Again, unless you’re a legal malpractice attorney looking to put a notch on your belt you won't side with the exposure of judicial misconduct.  There's no pay check coming to you if the unethical judges, lawyers and other judicial officers are exposed.  Most importantly you can't risk supporting a pro se litigant that you are more that likely to hold a prejudice against, and even if he appears to have a valid issue there is a chance that he has missed something, so why stick your neck out, right?

I think we all understand where I'm coming from right now.  I've put this issue off for quite some time now.  I must admit that I feared making enemies of those in the best position to support me.  But due to the huge support I have received from the legal community I will move forward.  I understand that there are many out there in the legal profession that take interest, and know what I set forth is true.

Let me thank them for their support, and further acknowledge to them that I will respect their wish to remain anonymous. I'm placed in the same conundrum as Frederick Douglass, wherein he could not name those that aided him in learning to read. He feared that retaliation would befall them.  Yet as the writer of the preface of his book stated: "Mr. Douglass has frankly disclosed the place of his birth, the names of those who claimed ownership in his body and soul, and the names also of those who committed the crimes which he has alleged against them.  His statements therefore, may easily be disproved, if they are untrue." [See page 12 of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an AmericanSlave, by Frederick Douglass]

The same holds true for any averments I have made, and as we can see no one has stepped up to disprove me, nor has any one taken up my offers that I be corrected upon the finding of a false allegation or the passing on of misinformation.  I ask the same herein, if the above is not true, the comment box below is open to all.

Most importantly I want everyone to see that the above is why we are still waiting for a decision from Judge Noel L. Hillman, as to his recusal.  Think, for one last time, this time you are a United States District Judge, do you want to admit that a man you claimed and or attempted to portray as "lacking personal knowledge," has caused you to admit that you have violated the law by presiding over a case that could further expose you’re a gratia favors, violations of the federal rules of civil procedure, attempted indoctrination of a newly appointed African-American female Magistrate Judge, failure to sanction clear violations of FRCVP 11, failure to consider complaints in their entirety, willfully ignorance of  exhibits attached to complaints, and plainly shown that your do not uphold the Constitution of the United States of America?

 Houston, we do have a problem but it's not with the messenger.

Thank you, one and all please continue to tell a friend or two.

The Casino Gaming Oracle!

There's more...to be continued...

Judges Recalcitrance Denies Justice & Delays Injustice

Within the posting entitled "Absolute Immunity via Recusal," I shared with you that: "Earl Hickson and Markland Grant have filed a ten page "28 U.S.C.A. § 1746 Declaration of Bias or Prejudice and Motion for Recusal of U.S.D.J. Noel L. Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams.  (What is 28 USCA § 1746)  Within 33 minutes of receiving the motion, amazingly the court was able to docket a hearing date of 2/21/2012. The average person would be impressed and say "wow what an efficient and speedy bunch of judicial officer." Not!"

February 21, 2012, was nine days ago today, March 1, 2012.  I can only guess that Judge Noel L. Hillman has finally decided to follow decisional case law in civil action 11-cv-06304, by conforming to Cooey v. Strickland, 479 F. 3d 412,425 holding: "While justice delayed may be justice denied, prompt injustice is not the answer." Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Smith, 676 F.2d 1023, 1040 n. 43 (5th Cir.1982) (emphasis added)."

 By delaying any action on the plaintiff's motion that he (Judge Noel L. Hillman) and Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams recuse themselves, this judge further exhibits an affinity to recognize that the holdings of Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 US 800 are applicable, when this case holds: "A court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own or of a coordinate court in any circumstance, although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was "clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice." Arizona v.California, supra, at 618, n. 8 (citation omitted)."

Please, do not allow yourselves to think like the plaintiff's for as you know Judge Noel L. Hillman say's that "Hickson lacks personal knowledge," and now so do you.  You see Judge Hillman appears to follow the words of Carter G. Woodson, "The Mis-Education of the Negro" at page 3/94 where he states: "The mere imparting of information is not education."

Now I don't know about you, but I took offence to his attack on my intellect, as my great-grandmother instilled in me early that I was not to grow up to be a fool.  Yet his (Judge Noel L. Hillman's) delay, whether it be out of prudence, stubbornness, or recalcitrance, his two opinions attempting to dismiss two valid and well pleaded civil actions make him to appear to be the oxymoron.  [You catch my drift and of that you have personal knowledge]

I've always had personal knowledge of the phrase "A hard head makes a soft ass," could it be that the word recalcitrance was just two big of a word for African-American parents to tell their children.  Then again they would have had to put it in the proper context and we would have something to the effect of, "a recalcitrant ass has a hard head." Hmm?

So, here we are nine days after the "oxymoronic" judge has failed to deliver "prompt injustice" and or continues to delay justice by his repentance and stepping down from all matters involving Earl Hickson and Markland Grant.

Thank You for waiting with me,

The Casino Gaming Oracle!

Bad Law-Law Bad, Yet They Follow

Law based upon fraud upon the court is bad law.  Judicial officer's perpetrating fraud upon the court is worse than bad law and they make the law look bad for the system itself is bad, hence the law is bad.  But, even when a court, or should I say a judge, writes bad law that is followed by other judges, said law spreads and makes all law bad.

 Thanks to my trip to the law library today I can show you better than I can tell you.  By now everyone knows that I am talking about Judge Noel L. Hillman's opinion of Sept, 27, 2010, reported as  Hickson v. Marina Associates, 743 F.Supp.2d 362.  The first time that I read this opinion folks, my first impression was I can not allow this to stand, (1) it is contrary to the law (2) it say's that it's okay to kidnap African-Americans (3) there are those within this courts jurisdiction that will not be blessed to understand this as I have been blessed and lastly, it has my name on it.

If Judge Noel L. Hillman and Earl D. Hickson are to be forever joined by this opinion let the world know the truth, as I am sharing through this blog.  Today folks I came across another of my fears, and it sets the stage for your concern as well.  If you allow your court judges to act as I am showing you how Noel L. Hillman acts, this will be the results.  Today I shepardized "Hickson v. Marina Associates, 743 F. Supp. 2d 362, and as of2/23/2012 this case has been cited by six other cases, plus it is referenced within the UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE 42 USCS § 1981, under interpretive note "153. Miscellaneous," at page 117 stating:

"Arrestee failed to establish 42 USCS § 1981 claims arising from alleged deprivation of casino credits that arrestee was accused of stealing but claimed were abandoned; there were insufficient allegations that arrestee was deprived of protected right on basis of race. Hickson v Marina Assocs. (2010, DC NJ) 743 F Supp 2d 362."

For those not versed in the law, the above is important folks.  It is a statutory provision of the United States of American, showing that it (the U.S.A.) is reporting the holdings of Judge Noel L. Hillman. Yet you are seeing what said opinion is base upon. If no one say's a damn thing Judge Noel L. Hillman's opinion will keep being cited till it becomes law of the land.

All within my age group remember the Saturday morning song on how a bill becomes a law?  Well folks, judge made law doesn't go through the same process, this (JSHIT)  of Hillman's is being pushed up the hill.  One of the most important reasons to stop it to me is…

 If said decision was based upon fraud and a judges willful ignorance of his oath to uphold the constitution of the United States, that amounts to treason.  If other judges follow this opinion and lawyers cite it they in turn are treasonous, but they have the "Lincoln Lawyer" excuse of willful ignorance so to speak, I must add that because they do have an obligation to investigate the case law they recite.

Again, for those in my age group that listened to "R & B," here's a scenario that would be perfect for the song "Things that make you go Hmm."  What if, some conscientious judicial officer were involved in this case from the start, and saw what was going on, or what if one is reading this blog and learns of the facts and reports them to the "FBI," and they in-turn perform an investigation which corroborates my allegations, and ethic's committee or board looks at Hillman's writings and determine that he is treasonous.

 Then what happens to Hickson v Marina Assocs. (2010, DC NJ) 743 F Supp 2d 362?  Does Karen M. Williams get to show her true color's and not say that's why she loves me, but "oops brotha, my bad?"  What about Deputy Attorney General Kathleen M. Bartus, does the State of New Jersey continue to employ her, opp's my bad, for she is up in age, I meant do they retire her ass with full pension?  Will they do the same for Mark Kosko the NJ State Trooper, Bartus filed the un-executed warrants with the court for,  that Hillman couched his opinion on.  Lets not forget the ring leader Christopher C. Mauro, will he continue to work and have offices in Princeton, NJ, yet mail shit from NY, will he further continue to submit bogus depositions to U.S. District Courts that are captioned for NJ Superior Courts. Hmm?

Say the above could never happen huh? You nay-sayer, you.  You never heard of U.S. v. Reich, 479 F.3d 179, 183, holding:

"Magistrate Judge Mann learned of the forged Order sometime in the afternoon of June 17 or June 18, when the attorney for one of the investor-defendants called her chambers to say he had heard that she had issued a decision. On June 18, she signed an order stating that the forged Order was fraudulent, had not been issued by the court, and should not be relied on in any manner. See Order, Ryan Beck v. Fakih, No. 02 Civ. 4052 (E.D.N.Y. June 23, 2003) (Docket Entry No. 110). She also contacted the Second Circuit so that it would not rely on the forged Order for purposes of considering the mandamus application, and notified the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York of the forged Order. The United States Attorney's Office referred the matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") for investigation."

I applaud Magistrate Judge Mann above as she had courage, she did not fold to injustice. She did not fold to the "good ole boy's and girl's" code, she knew wrong is wrong.  Now things should start to become a bit more clearer, and you should understand why Judge Hillman pounced upon the motion to recuse within 33 minutes, but now you also understand why said ruling is three days late and counting.  I have no doubt that the entire Courthouse in Camden knows what's going on, and they know they all f@#$-up.  [Summons' lacking Court Seals and all]  "Bad Law-Law bad that candor towards the tribunal. Good thing were not before them huh?

 One last thing, you should also see that if this blog is reaching those under and ethical duty, you now know why this blog gets zero comments, you guessed it, it's read in the confines of the "Lincoln," and what's read in the Lincoln, stays in the Lincoln. "Bad Lincoln Law-Lincoln Law Bad…

Thank you, have a great weekend, and please invite a friend or two to the Lincoln.

The Casino Gaming Oracle!

Case Law Condemnation of the Cohorts

I'm tired too, of kicking the dead horse so to speak.  Just as you, the viewer are probable wishing that I move on, I wish to do the same as well.  That is why the "28 U.S.C.A. § 1746 Declaration of Bias or Prejudice and Motion for Recusal of U.S.D.J. Noel L. Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams," was filed.

Today, after not receiving any notice from the court as to Judge Noel L. Hillmans decision on the recusal motion, nor seeing any opinion or memorandum posted on the internet, as evidenced by the lack of justia.com having updated its record on the case, I will assume that Judge Hillman has chosen not to react as quickly as he did in setting the hearing date of 2/21/2012.

My main goal for this posting is to bring you one last "Condemnation of the Cohorts" as the following case law will show.  The Supreme Court of the United States, within Scott v. Harris 127 S.Ct. 1769 (2007), at 1776 stated:

"At the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a "genuine" dispute as to those facts. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(c). As we have emphasized, "[w]hen the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . . Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no `genuine issue for trial.'" Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (footnote omitted). "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment."

Judge Noel L. Hillman has ignored the above case law as his Sept. 27,2010 opinion substantiates.  One have further interest in a greater understanding of the law will note that in the above case of Scott v. Harris, the court cites that there was a video tape, which revealed and clarified the facts of the case and further showed that the lower court should not have just accepted the plaintiff's version of the facts.

 You might be thinking "I thought this (Gaming Oracle) guy was the plaintiff, so why would he point out case law going against the plaintiff?"  If you are thinking like that, you are falling prey to the line of thinking that "Liars for Hire" and (JSHIT) practitioners want you to have.  The above case law points out the fact that Judge Noel L. Hillman should have utilized the exhibits attached to the complaint pursuant to FRCVP 10 (c), and he should not have written an opinion devoid of one reference to said attached exhibits, as that act certifies his and his cohorts condemnation as unethical judicial officers.

 With the above stated I now rejoin you in awaiting Judge Noel L. Hillmans notice that he will step aside so that justice may be done.  With that being his only option as the facts and documents support, I will proceed in sharing the facts that were presented to the court as part of the summary judgment motions filed. Prepare yourselves, just because we will be moving on from Judge Hillman, you will be introduced to the "Liars for Hire." 

Thank You, for all your views and support, please tell another friend or two.

The Casino Gaming Oracle!

Corroboration via The Legal Papers (part III)

Now the clock begins to tick, and we shall know if Judge Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams will recuse themselves from civil actions 11-cv-06304 and 08-cv-02407.  I have shared with you in a previous post that Judge Noel L. Hillman pounced upon the recusal motion within 33 minutes of its filing to set the date for hearing on 2/21/2012.  [See second paragraph of "Absolute Immunity via Recusal"]

On May 15, 2012, civil action 08-cv-02407 will become four years old, and during that period this writer has never receive such a quick response from the court, as was the case of receiving the notice that the recusal motion would be heard on 2/21/2012.  It would appear to follow that Judge Noel L. Hillman would act with the same speed in rendering his opinion, would it not?  Hence, this writer should be receiving some (JSHIT) in the mail today, 2/22/2012 and John and Jane Q. Public should have access to the same via the internet on Friday 2/24/2012, right, or its another case of justice delayed is justice denied, HMM?

 Today, while we await our response lets take a look at what another legal paper has to say about a judges recusal.  "HISTORY OF AND PROBLEMS WITH THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION FRAMEWORK, by Richard E. Flamm," at page (10/13) states:

"It has been said that the net effect of the 1974 amendments to § 455

was  to “liberalize greatly the scope of [judicial] disqualification in the

federal courts,”65 and in some ways, that may be true.  But the amended

statute was not without its own problems.  For one thing, as one federal

district court  judge tersely noted, “[i]t  is not so easy as the Congress and

the Court of Appeals seem to think it is to determine what ‘a reasonable

person knowing all the relevant facts’ would think about anything, much

less about the impartiality of a judge.”66  Another problem is that, while the

1974 amendments to § 455 supposedly displaced the “duty to sit” concept

with a rule requiring judges to resolve any doubts about whether

disqualification was warranted in favor of disqualification, a spate of recent

federal court decisions have affirmed preamendment case law holding that

a federal judge is as obligated to sit when the facts do not give fair support

to a charge of prejudgment, as the judge is to recuse when the facts warrant

such action.

Yet another problem is that federal judges who are  called upon to

decide disqualification motions are under no obligation to explain their

rationale, either for recusing themselves or for declining to do so.  This is

problematic because, while federal judges do recuse themselves in many

situations, a judge who does so rarely writes an opinion explaining why.  In

contrast, judges who decline to disqualify themselves often write lengthy

opinions explaining their reasoning."

 Having no doubt that we will get the latter of the above, I have taken the liberty to share with you the real reason why these judges are pursuing their course of action, and that is because they know that all it takes is one of the litigants in 11-cv-06304 to say that she was not at a deposition on July 22, 2010, and this band of cohorts entire gig is wrecked, do you agree? [See 10th paragraph of "A gratia--ExGratia--Aah JSHIT" and the 4th paragraph of "Appearance of Justice w/ Aroma of J.S.H.I.T, But!"]

Thank You for waiting with me,

The Casino Gaming Oracle!

Corroboration via The Legal Papers (part II)

Continuing with the aide of my distinguished corroborators, Sample, Pozen, and Young, via their paper written for  The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law entitled: "Fair Courts: Setting Recusal Standards," holding: "disqualification is prescribed when the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts."

Let's take a look at a few more evidentiary facts that these judges had knowledge of, and or feign the lack there of through "willful ignorance."  "Bent of Mind" Leads to Straight Injustice brought to your attention the holdings of Supreme Court decisional case law that plainly stated: “Second, courts must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources courts ordinarily examine when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, in particular, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice,"  Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 127 S. Ct.2499, 2509.

Within an earlier post, "Aiding and Abetting From the Bench (partII)" I stated at "2 (c)" that: "As I will show later on, by some combination of the Judges and the "liars for hire," it took these band of cohorts some 4 months to mutilate this "Third Amended Complaint" to remove all attached exhibits presenting valid New Jersey statutes and regulations controlling the NJ Casinos."  That time has come folks, as I firmly believe that Judge Noel L. Hilllman will skirt this issue.

 So, lets sum up what we have so far. We have Supreme Court decisional case law that say that a complaint should be read in its entirety. Now we need the missing piece that will explain why  Judges Noel L. Hillman, Karen M. Williams, attorney's Christopher C. Mauro and Kathleen M. Bartus conspired to remove eight pages from the "Third Amended Complaint" of civil action 08-cv-02407. 

If a judge does not want to review a complaint in its entirety the fist thing he or she "damn well better do," is remove what he or she doesn't need or want reviewed, and that is what Judges Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams are attempting here folks.  Those that have read my post "Attached by Law and Ignored by Will," are familiar with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 (c).  This rule says that exhibits attached to a pleading are part of the pleading. I'll say it for you...Hmm? Further as I revealed in paragraph seven of "Attached by Lawand Ignored by Will" the interpretive notes of this rule of civil procedure holds at note 19 that: "United States ex rel. Riley v. St. Lukes Episcopal Hosp.  355F.3d (2004, CA5 Tex) holding: "Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 ( c ), exhibits attached to complaint are part of complaint for all purposes; therefor, it is not error to consider exhibits to be part of complaint for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P 12 (b) (6) motion."

So why would two Federal Court judges violate Supreme Court decisional case law, a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and its interpretive notes containing further decisional case law? Lacking a better term and not beholden to [FN] "Candor Towards the Tribunal" I will tell you folks that these judges knew that attached to civil action 08-cv-02407 were valid [FN] "Statutory Laws."  Those of New Jersey's Casino Control Act and New Jersey Administrative Codes that regulate NJ casinos.

I could go into the math, that would show that I mailed Judge Karen M. Williams five copies of a 78 page "Third Amended Complaint," and that my receipt from the U.S. Postal Service supports the same.  I could go into the fact that this judge attempted to sell the cohorts lie on the record within a status conference at a U.S. District Court on 12/17/2010. I could further show you that Kathleen M. Bartus provided the copies used to manufacture the altered and mutilated copy of the "Third Amended Complaint" to civil action 08-cv-02407, but there are easier ways to prove my point folks.

Two paragraphs above decisional case law says: "Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 ( c ), exhibits attached to complaint are part of complaint for all purposes; therefor, it is not error to consider exhibits to be part of complaint." Regardless of the tricks attempted by these judges and attorney's, by law Judge Noel L. Hillman is accountable for the lack of one mention of the word "Exhibit" within his opinion of Sept. 27, 2010.  Still don't believe me, here is a link to the same on google scholar, search it for the word exhibit, I'll wait… [743 F.Supp.2d 362 (2010)]

By way of comment, maybe you the reader can help Judge Noel L. Hillman out of this conundrum, because the average reasonable person can but conclude that the complaint is not considered in its entirety if there is not one mention of an exhibit attached to the complaint.  Then there is the fact that there are numerous over-exposures of the attached exhibits that this judge fails to mention.  Tell you what, here is a link to accurate and true copies of pages 49 to 55, download and print them out for yourselves to see if they are not readable...I'll wait…[Accurate/True Copies of Pages 49 to 55]

Those of you out there in "BloggerLand" that have access to a "PACER ACCOUNT" can log on to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden, and view the record and compare the above pages to civil action 08-cv-02407.  Afterwards please come back and share your thoughts, I'm willing to bet that you will agree with my post "Low Down, Dirty-Dirty, Even Criminal(Shame)," as these band of cohorts have clearly violated another Federal Statute.  This time a criminal one, that being 18 USCS §2071 (a), stating "Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

But on this Feb. 21, 2012 one cohort will skirt being charged the above offense by claiming "Absolute Immunity" by way of Recusal, if you let him get away with it. Not knowing your stance I intend to stay on that ass though-out the day as this wrongdoer pounced on the motion in 33 min as shown within paragraph two of "Absolute Immunity via Recusal."  So lets see if we get the same speedy turn around, which would put a copy of his reply to the motion in my mailbox or online by 2/22/2012.

 But then again the experts (legal eagle's) say: "Likewise, while some jurisdictions encourage or require challenged judges to hold evidentiary hearings, most leave the decision of whether to do so entirely to the judge’s discretion.  With or without hearings, judges in most jurisdictions do not need to give a reasoned explanation for their recusal decisions.  In practice, judges have been much more likely to give reasons when they decline to recuse themselves." [See page 19(21/51) of  Fair Courts: Setting Recusal Standards]

Lastly, the writers of "Fair Courts: Setting Recusal Standards" state another reason that compels me to make this injustice know in this forum, and that is found on page 20(22/51), wherein they state: "Second, several of the current doctrines concerning recusal make it likely that disqualification provisions are under-enforced.  Allowing judges to decide challenges to their own impartiality is not a policy calculated to promote vigorous enforcement. Transferring

the motion to friendly colleagues on the same court, while an improvement over deciding

one’s own case, may not substantially improve the situation.  Moreover, the fact that judges

generally are required neither to hold hearings on the claim nor to give reasons for their

decisions makes it easy for them to reject even meritorious disqualification motions with

impunity."

 So now we wait, that's right "We" your rights are on the line as well, but rest assured for I will keep you posted and 2/22/2012 begins a new count down.

Thank you, as always!

The Casino Gaming Oracle!